The Trump administration is pressuring Taiwan to rapidly move 50 percent of its chip production into the US if it wants ensured protection against a threatened Chinese invasion, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told NewsNation this weekend.
In the interview, Lutnick noted that Taiwan currently makes about 95 percent of chips used in smartphones and cars, as well as in critical military defense technology. It’s bad for the US, Lutnick said, that “95 percent of our chips are made 9,000 miles away,” while China is not being “shy” about threats to “take” Taiwan.
Were the US to lose access to Taiwan’s supply chain, the US could be defenseless as its economy takes a hit, Lutnick alleged, asking, “How are you going to get the chips here to make your drones, to make your equipment?”
“The model is: if you can’t make your own chips, how can you defend yourself, right?” Lutnick argued. That’s why he confirmed his “objective” during his time in office is to shift US chip production from 2 percent to 40 percent. To achieve that, he plans to bring Taiwan’s “whole supply chain” into the US, a move experts have suggested could take much longer than a single presidential term to accomplish.
In 2023, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang forecast that the US was “somewhere between a decade and two decades away from supply chain independence,” emphasizing that “it’s not a really practical thing for a decade or two.”
Deal is “not natural for Taiwan”
Lutnick acknowledged this will be a “herculean” task. “Everybody tells me it’s impossible,” he said.
To start with, Taiwan must be convinced that it’s not getting a raw deal, he noted, explaining that it’s “not natural for Taiwan” to mull a future where it cedes its dominant role as a global chip supplier, as well as the long-running protections it receives from allies that comes with it.
Taiwan has begun evolving its trade strategy to start wielding its dominant position as a leading supplier of cutting-edge chips as a weapon, Bloomberg reported.
The move comes amid Donald Trump’s heightening global trade war and after years of Taiwan’s use of its chip dominance as a shield against Chinese aggression, with Taiwan allying with the US to stave off China’s threats of invasion. Under the so-called “one-China principle,” China has rejected Taiwan’s independence, requiring allies to sever ties with Taiwan.
On Tuesday, Taiwan announced that it would be limiting shipments of semiconductors into South Africa—among 47 restricted products—due to national security concerns. The rare export curbs could hit South Africa’s “electronics, telecom, and auto parts sectors” hard, MSN reported, if South Africa doesn’t meet with Taiwan to discuss better terms within the next 60 days.
As Bloomberg previously reported, Taiwan is upset that South Africa unilaterally moved to relocate Taiwan’s embassy from Pretoria to Johannesburg after meeting with China’s president, Xi Jinping, in 2023. As a major ally to China, South Africa recently intensified pressure to move the embassy in July ahead of another meeting in November that Xi is expected to attend—attempting to signal that South Africa was weakening ties with Taiwan, as China had demanded.
Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately protested South Africa’s efforts in July, accusing South Africa of suppressing Taiwan and promising countermeasures if South Africa refused to consult with Taiwan on the embassy relocation.
In a statement, South Africa’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Chrispin Phiri, insisted that South Africa’s ties with Taiwan are “non-political,” while noting that “South Africa is a critical supplier of platinum group metals, like palladium, essential to the global semiconductor industry,” Bloomberg reported.
On Wednesday, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, criticized Taiwan’s export curbs as “a deliberate move to destabilize global chip industrial and supply chains and counter the prevailing international commitment to the one-China principle by weaponizing chips.”
Intel has agreed to sell the US a 10 percent stake in the company, Donald Trump announced at a news conference Friday.
The US stake is worth $10 billion, Trump said, confirming that the deal was inked following his talks with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan.
Trump had previously called for Tan to resign, accusing the CEO of having “concerning” ties to the Chinese Communist Party. During their meeting, the president claimed that Tan “walked in wanting to keep his job and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States.”
“I said, ‘I think it would be good having the United States as your partner.’ He agreed, and they’ve agreed to do it,” Trump said. “And I think it’s a great deal for them.”
Sources have suggested that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick pushed the idea of the US buying large stakes in various chipmakers like Intel in exchange for access to CHIPS Act funding that had already been approved. Earlier this week, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) got behind the plan, noting that “if microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment.”
However, Trump apparently doesn’t plan to seek a stake in every company that the US has awarded CHIPS funding to. Instead, he likely plans to only approach chipmakers that won’t commit to increasing their investments in the US. For example, a government official, speaking anonymously, told The Wall Street Journal Friday that “the administration isn’t looking to own equity in companies like TSMC that are increasing their investments” in the US.
Trump’s attacks on Intel CEO may stem from beef with Biden.
Lip-Bu Tan, chief executive officer of Intel Corp., departs following a meeting at the White House. President Donald Trump said Tan had an “amazing story” after the meeting.
Donald Trump has been meddling with Intel, which now apparently includes mulling “the possibility of the US government taking a financial stake in the troubled chip maker,” The Wall Street Journal reported.
Trump and Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan weighed the option during a meeting on Monday at the White House, people familiar with the matter told WSJ. These talks have only just begun—with Intel branding them a rumor—and sources told the WSJ that Trump has yet to iron out how the potential arrangement might work.
The WSJ’s report comes after Trump called for Tan to “resign immediately” last week. Trump’s demand was seemingly spurred by a letter that Republican senator Tom Cotton sent to Intel, accusing Tan of having “concerning” ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
Cotton accused Tan of controlling “dozens of Chinese companies” and holding a stake in “hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms,” at least eight of which “reportedly have ties to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.”
Further, before joining Intel, Tan was CEO of Cadence Design Systems, which recently “pleaded guilty to illegally selling its products to a Chinese military university and transferring its technology to an associated Chinese semiconductor company without obtaining license.”
“These illegal activities occurred under Mr. Tan’s tenure,” Cotton pointed out.
He demanded answers by August 15 from Intel on whether they weighed Tan’s alleged Cadence conflicts of interest against the company’s requirements to comply with US national security laws after accepting $8 billion in CHIPS Act funding—the largest granted during Joe Biden’s term. The senator also asked Intel if Tan was required to make any divestments to meet CHIPS Act obligations and if Tan has ever disclosed any ties to the Chinese government to the US government.
Neither Intel nor Cotton’s office responded to Ars’ request to comment on the letter or confirm whether Intel has responded.
But Tan has claimed that there is “a lot of misinformation” about his career and portfolio, the South China Morning Post reported. Born in Malaysia, Tan has been a US citizen for 40 years after finishing postgraduate studies in nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In an op-ed, SCMP reporter Alex Lo suggested that Tan’s investments—which include stakes in China’s largest sanctioned chipmaker, SMIC, as well as “several” companies on US trade blacklists, SCMP separately reported—seem no different than other US executives and firms with substantial investments in Chinese firms.
“Cotton accused [Tan] of having extensive investments in China,” Lo wrote. “Well, name me a Wall Street or Silicon Valley titan in the past quarter of a century who didn’t have investment or business in China. Elon Musk? Apple? BlackRock?”
He also noted that “numerous news reports” indicated that “Cadence staff in China hid the dodgy sales from the company’s compliance officers and bosses at the US headquarters,” which Intel may explain to Cotton if a response comes later today.
Any red flags that Intel’s response may raise seems likely to heighten Trump’s scrutiny, as he looks to make what Reuters reported was yet another “unprecedented intervention” by a president in a US firm’s business. Previously, Trump surprised the tech industry by threatening the first-ever tariffs aimed at a US company (Apple) and more recently, Trump struck an unusual deal with Nvidia and AMD that gives US a 15 percent cut of the firms’ revenue from China chip sales.
However, Trump was seemingly impressed by Tan after some face-time this week. Trump came out of their meeting professing that Tan has an “amazing story,” Bloomberg reported, noting that any agreement between Trump and Tan “would likely help Intel build out” its planned $28 billion chip complex in Ohio.
Those chip fabs—boosted by CHIPS Act funding—were supposed to put Intel on track to launch operations by 2030, but delays have set that back by five years, Bloomberg reported. That almost certainly scrambles another timeline that Biden’s Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo had suggested would ensure that “20 percent of the world’s most advanced chips are made in the US by the end of the decade.”
Why Intel may be into Trump’s deal
At one point, Intel was the undisputed leader in chip manufacturing, Bloomberg noted, but its value plummeted from $288 billion in 2020 to $104 billion today. The chipmaker has been struggling for a while—falling behind as Nvidia grew to dominate the AI chip industry—and 2024 was its “first unprofitable year since 1986,” Reuters reported. As the dismal year wound down, Intel’s longtime CEO Pat Gelsinger retired.
Helming Intel for more than 40 years, Gelsinger acknowledged the “challenging year.” Now Tan is expected to turn it around. To do that, he may need to deprioritize the manufacturing process that Gelsinger pushed, which Tan suspects may have caused Intel being viewed as an outdated firm, anonymous insiders told Reuters. Sources suggest he’s planning to pivot Intel to focus more on “a next-generation chipmaking process where Intel expects to have advantages over Taiwan’s TSMC,” which currently dominates chip manufacturing and even counts Intel as a customer, Reuters reported. As it stands now, TSMC “produces about a third of Intel’s supply,” SCMP reported.
This pivot is supposedly how Tan expects Intel can eventually poach TSMC’s biggest customers like Apple and Nvidia, Reuters noted.
Intel has so far claimed that any discussions of Tan’s supposed plans amount to nothing but speculation. But if Tan did go that route, one source told Reuters that Intel would likely have to take a write-off that industry analysts estimate could trigger losses “of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.”
Perhaps facing that hurdle, Tan might be open to agreeing to the US purchasing a financial stake in the company while he rights the ship.
Trump/Intel deal reminiscent of TikTok deal
Any deal would certainly deepen the government’s involvement in the US chip industry, which is widely viewed as critical to US national security.
While unusual, the deal does seem somewhat reminiscent to the TikTok buyout that the Trump administration has been trying to iron out since he took office. Through that deal, the US would acquire enough ownership divested from China-linked entities to supposedly appease national security concerns, but China has been hesitant to sign off on any of Trump’s proposals so far.
Last month, Trump admitted that he wasn’t confident that he could sell China on the TikTok deal, which TikTok suggested would have resulted in a glitchier version of the app for American users. More recently, Trump’s commerce secretary threatened to shut down TikTok if China refuses to approve the current version of the deal.
Perhaps the terms of a US deal with Intel could require Tan to divest certain holdings that the US fears compromises the CEO. Under terms of the CHIPS Act grant, Intel is already required to be “a responsible steward of American taxpayer dollars and to comply with applicable security regulations,” Cotton reminded the company in his letter.
But social media users in Malaysia and Singapore have criticized Cotton of the “usual case of racism” in attacking Intel’s CEO, SCMP reported. They noted that Cotton “was the same person who repeatedly accused TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew of ties with the Chinese Communist Party despite his insistence of being a Singaporean,” SCMP reported.
“Now it’s the Intel’s CEO’s turn on the chopping block for being [ethnic] Chinese,” a Facebook user, Michael Ong, said.
Tensions were so high that there was even a social media push for Tan to “call on Trump’s bluff and resign, saying ‘Intel is the next Nokia’ and that Chinese firms would gladly take him instead,” SCMP reported.
So far, Tan has not criticized the Trump administration for questioning his background, but he did issue a statement yesterday, seemingly appealing to Trump by emphasizing his US patriotism.
“I love this country and am profoundly grateful for the opportunities it has given me,” Tan said. “I also love this company. Leading Intel at this critical moment is not just a job—it’s a privilege.”
Trump’s Intel attacks rooted in Biden beef?
In his op-ed, SCMP’s Lo suggested that “Intel itself makes a good punching bag” as the biggest recipient of CHIPS Act funding. The CHIPS Act was supposed to be Biden’s lasting legacy in the US, and Trump has resolved to dismantle it, criticizing supposed handouts to tech firms that Trump prefers to strong-arm into US manufacturing instead through unpredictable tariff regimes.
“The attack on Intel is also an attack on Trump’s predecessor, Biden, whom he likes to blame for everything, even though the industrial policies of both administrations and their tech war against China are similar,” Lo wrote.
At least one lawmaker is ready to join critics who question if Trump’s trade war is truly motivated by national security concerns. On Friday, US representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D.-Ill.) sent a letter to Trump “expressing concern” over Trump allowing Nvidia to resume exports of its H20 chips to China.
“Trump’s reckless policy on AI chip exports sells out US security to Beijing,” Krishnamoorthi warned.
“Allowing even downgraded versions of cutting-edge AI hardware to flow” to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) “risks accelerating Beijing’s capabilities and eroding our technological edge,” Krishnamoorthi wrote. Further, “the PRC can build the largest AI supercomputers in the world by purchasing a moderately larger number of downgraded Blackwell chips—and achieve the same capability to train frontier AI models and deploy them at scale for national security purposes.”
Krishnamoorthi asked Trump to send responses by August 22 to four questions. Perhaps most urgently, he wants Trump to explain “what specific legal authority would allow the US government to “extract revenue sharing as a condition for the issuance of export licenses” and what exactly he intends to do with those funds.
Trump was also asked to confirm if the president followed protocols established by Congress to ensure proper export licensing through the agreement. Finally, Krishnamoorthi demanded to know if Congress was ever “informed or consulted at any point during the negotiation or development of this reported revenue-sharing agreement with NVIDIA and AMD.”
“The American people deserve transparency,” Krishnamoorthi wrote. “Our export control regime must be based on genuine security considerations, not creative taxation schemes disguised as national security policy.”
Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.
But experts seem to fear that Trump isn’t paying enough attention to how exports of US technology could threaten to not only supercharge China’s military and AI capabilities but also drain supplies that US firms need to keep the US at the forefront of AI innovation.
“More chips for China means fewer chips for the US,” experts said, noting that “China’s biggest tech firms, including Tencent, ByteDance, and Alibaba,” have spent $16 billion on bulk-ordered H20 chips over the past year.
Meanwhile, “projected data center demand from the US power market would require 90 percent of global chip supply through 2030, an unlikely scenario even without China joining the rush to buy advanced AI chips,” experts said. If Trump doesn’t intervene, one of America’s biggest AI rivals could even end up driving up costs of AI chips for US firms, they warned.
“We urge you to reverse course,” the letter concluded. “This is not a question of trade. It is a question of national security.”
Trump says he never heard of Nvidia before
Perhaps the bigger problem for Trump, national security experts suggest, would be if China or other trade partners perceive the US resolve to wield export controls as a foreign policy tool to be “weakened” by Trump reversing course on H20 controls.
They suggested that Trump caving on H20 controls could even “embolden China to seek additional access concessions” at a time when some analysts suggest that China may already have an upper hand in trade negotiations.
The US and China are largely expected to extend a 90-day truce following recent talks in Stockholm, Reuters reported. Anonymous sources told the South China Morning Post that the US may have already agreed to not impose any new tariffs or otherwise ratchet up the trade war during that truce, but that remains unconfirmed, as Trump continues to warn that chip tariffs are coming soon.
Trump has recently claimed that he thinks he may be close to cementing a deal with China, but it appears likely that talks will continue well into the fall. A meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping probably won’t be scheduled until late October or early November, Reuters reported.
Trump’s plan was not welcomed by everyone. J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate for Public Citizen, in a statement provided to Ars, criticized Trump as giving “sweetheart deals” to tech companies that would cause “electricity bills to rise to subsidize discounted power for massive AI data centers.”
Infrastructure demands and energy requirements
Trump’s new AI plan tackles infrastructure head-on, stating that “AI is the first digital service in modern life that challenges America to build vastly greater energy generation than we have today.” To meet this demand, it proposes streamlining environmental permitting for data centers through new National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) exemptions, making federal lands available for construction and modernizing the power grid—all while explicitly rejecting “radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape.”
The document embraces what it calls a “Build, Baby, Build!” approach—echoing a Trump campaign slogan—and promises to restore semiconductor manufacturing through the CHIPS Program Office, though stripped of “extraneous policy requirements.”
On the technology front, the plan directs Commerce to revise NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework to “eliminate references to misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change.” Federal procurement would favor AI developers whose systems are “objective and free from top-down ideological bias.” The document strongly backs open source AI models and calls for exporting American AI technology to allies while blocking administration-labeled adversaries like China.
Security proposals include high-security military data centers and warnings that advanced AI systems “may pose novel national security risks” in cyberattacks and weapons development.
Critics respond with “People’s AI Action Plan”
Before the White House unveiled its plan, more than 90 organizations launched a competing “People’s AI Action Plan” on Tuesday, characterizing the Trump administration’s approach as “a massive handout to the tech industry” that prioritizes corporate interests over public welfare. The coalition includes labor unions, environmental justice groups, and consumer protection nonprofits.
For many Americans, losing TikTok would be disruptive. TikTok has warned that US businesses could lose $1 billion in one month if TikTok shuts down. As these businesses wait in limbo for a resolution to the situation, it’s getting harder to take the alleged national security threat seriously, as clinching the deal appears to lack urgency.
On Wednesday, the White House continued to warn that Americans are not safe using TikTok, though, despite leaving Americans vulnerable for an extended period that could now stretch to eight months.
In a statement, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt only explained that “President Trump does not want TikTok to go dark” and would sign an executive order “to keep TikTok up and running” through mid-September. Leavitt confirmed that the Trump administration would focus on finishing the deal in this three-month period, “making sure the sale closes so that Americans can keep using TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure,” Reuters reported.
US-China tensions continue, despite truce
Trump’s negotiations with China have been shaky, but a truce was reestablished last week that could potentially pave the way for a TikTok deal.
Initially, Trump had planned to use the TikTok deal as a bargaining chip, but the tit-for-tat retaliations between the US and China all spring reportedly left China hesitant to agree to any deal. Perhaps sensing the power shift in negotiations, Trump offered to reduce China’s highest tariffs to complete the deal in March. But by April, analysts opined that Trump was still “desperate” to close, while China saw no advantage in letting go of TikTok any time soon.
Despite the current truce, tensions between the US and China continue, as China has begun setting its own deadlines to maintain leverage in the trade war. According to The Wall Street Journal, China put a six-month limit “on the sales of rare earths to US carmakers and manufacturers, giving Beijing leverage if the trade conflict flares up again.”
“Despite TSMC’s best efforts to comply with all relevant export control and sanctions laws and regulations, there is no assurance that its business activities will not be found incompliant with export control laws and regulations,” TSMC said.
Further, “if TSMC or TSMC’s business partners fail to obtain appropriate import, export or re-export licenses or permits or are found to have violated applicable export control or sanctions laws, TSMC may also be adversely affected, through reputational harm as well as other negative consequences, including government investigations and penalties resulting from relevant legal proceedings,” TSMC warned.
Trump’s tariffs may end TSMC’s “tariff-proof” era
TSMC is thriving despite years of tariffs and export controls, its report said, with at least one analyst suggesting that, so far, the company appears “somewhat tariff-proof.” However, all of that could be changing fast, as “US President Donald Trump announced in 2025 an intention to impose more expansive tariffs on imports into the United States,” TSMC said.
“Any tariffs imposed on imports of semiconductors and products incorporating chips into the United States may result in increased costs for purchasing such products, which may, in turn, lead to decreased demand for TSMC’s products and services and adversely affect its business and future growth,” TSMC said.
And if TSMC’s business is rattled by escalations in the US-China trade war, TSMC warned, that risks disrupting the entire global semiconductor supply chain.
Trump’s semiconductor tariff plans remain uncertain. About a week ago, Trump claimed the rates would be unveiled “over the next week,” Reuters reported, which means they could be announced any day now.
Tech innovation in US likely to stall if Trump ends the CHIPS Act.
On Tuesday, Donald Trump finally made it clear to Congress that he wants to kill the CHIPS and Science Act—a $280 billion bipartisan law Joe Biden signed in 2022 to bring more semiconductor manufacturing into the US and put the country at the forefront of research and innovation.
Trump has long expressed frustration with the high cost of the CHIPS Act, telling Congress on Tuesday that it’s a “horrible, horrible thing” to “give hundreds of billions of dollars” in subsidies to companies that he claimed “take our money” and “don’t spend it,” Reuters reported.
“You should get rid of the CHIPS Act, and whatever is left over, Mr. Speaker, you should use it to reduce debt,” Trump said.
Instead, Trump potentially plans to shift the US from incentivizing chips manufacturing to punishing firms dependent on imports, threatening a 25 percent tariff on all semiconductor imports that could kick in as soon as April 2, CNBC reported.
The CHIPS Act was supposed to be Biden’s legacy, and because he made it a priority, much of the $52.7 billion in subsidies that Trump is criticizing has already been finalized. In 2022, Biden approved $39 billion in subsidies for semiconductor firms, and in his last weeks in office, he finalized more than $33 billion in awards, Reuters noted.
Among the awardees are leading semiconductor firms, including the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), Micron, Intel, Nvidia, and Samsung Electronics. Although Trump claims the CHIPS Act is one-sided and only serves to benefit firms, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association, the law sparked $450 billion in private investments increasing semiconductor production across 28 states by mid-2024.
With the CHIPS Act officially in Trump’s crosshairs, innovation appears likely to stall the longer that lawmakers remain unsettled on whether the law stays or goes. Some officials worried that Trump might interfere with Biden’s binding agreements with leading firms already holding up their end of the bargain, Reuters reported. For example, Micron plans to invest $100 billion in New York, and TSMC just committed to spending the same over the next four years to expand construction of US chips fabs, which is already well underway.
So far, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has only indicated that he will review the finalized awards, noting that the US wouldn’t be giving TSMC any new awards, Reuters reported.
But the CHIPS Act does much more than provide subsidies to lure leading semiconductor companies into the US. For the first time in decades, the law created a new arm of the National Science Foundation (NSF)—the Directorate of Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP)—which functions unlike any other part of NSF and now appears existentially threatened.
Designed to take the country’s boldest ideas from basic research to real-world applications as fast as possible to make the US as competitive as possible, TIP helps advance all NSF research and was supposed to ensure US leadership in breakthrough technologies, including AI, 6G communications, biotech, quantum computing, and advanced manufacturing.
Biden allocated $20 billion to launch TIP through the CHIPS Act to accelerate technology development not just at top firms but also in small research settings across the US. But as soon as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) started making cuts at NSF this year, TIP got hit the hardest. Seemingly TIP was targeted not because DOGE deemed it the least consequential but simply because it was the youngest directorate at NSF with the most workers in transition when Trump took office and DOGE abruptly announced it was terminating all “probationary” federal workers.
It took years to get TIP ready to flip the switch to accelerate tech innovation in the US. Without it, Trump risks setting the US back at a time when competitors like China are racing ahead and wooing US scientists who suddenly may not know if or when their funding is coming, NSF workers and industry groups told Ars.
Without TIP, NSF slows down
Last month, DOGE absolutely scrambled the NSF by forcing arbitrary cuts of so-called probationary employees—mostly young scientists, some of whom were in transition due to promotions. All those cuts were deemed illegal and finally reversed Monday by court order after weeks of internal chaos reportedly stalling or threatening to delay some of the highest-priority research in the US.
“The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees at another agency,” US District Judge William Alsup said, calling probationary employees the “life blood” of government agencies.
Ars granted NSF workers anonymity to discuss how cuts were impacting research. At TIP, a federal worker told Ars that one of the probationary cuts in particular threatened to do the most damage.
Because TIP is so new, only one worker was trained to code automated tracking forms that helped decision-makers balance budgets and approve funding for projects across NSF in real time. Ars’ source likened it to holding the only key to the vault of NSF funding. And because TIP is so different from other NSF branches—hiring experts never pulled into NSF before and requiring customized resources to coordinate projects across all NSF fields of research—the insider suggested another government worker couldn’t easily be substituted. It could take possibly two years to hire and train a replacement on TIP’s unique tracking system, the source said, while TIP’s (and possibly all of NSF’s) efficiency is likely strained.
TIP has never been fully functional, the TIP insider confirmed, and could be choked off right as it starts helping to move the needle on US innovation. “Imagine where we are in two years and where China is in two years in quantum computing, semiconductors, or AI,” the TIP insider warned, pointing to China’s surprisingly advanced AI model, DeepSeek, as an indicator of how quickly tech leadership in global markets can change.
On Monday, NSF emailed all workers to confirm that all probationary workers would be reinstated “right away.” But the damage may already be done as it’s unclear how many workers plan to return. When TIP lost the coder—who was seemingly fired for a technicality while transitioning to a different payscale—NSF workers rushed to recommend the coder on LinkedIn, hoping to help the coder quickly secure another opportunity in industry or academia.
Ars could not reach the coder to confirm whether a return to TIP is in the cards. But Ars’ source at TIP and another NSF worker granted anonymity said that probationary workers may be hesitant to return because they are likely to be hit in any official reductions in force (RIFs) in the future.
“RIFs done the legal way are likely coming down the pipe, so these staff are not coming back to a place of security,” the NSF worker said. “The trust is broken. Even for those that choose to return, they’d be wise to be seeking other opportunities.”
And even losing the TIP coder for a couple of weeks likely slows NSF down at a time when the US seemingly can’t afford to lose a single day.
“We’re going to get murdered” if China sets the standard on 6G or AI, the TIP worker fears.
Rivals and allies wooing top US scientists
On Monday, six research and scientific associations, which described themselves as “leading organizations representing more than 305,000 people in computing, information technology, and technical innovation across US industry, academia, and government,” wrote to Congress demanding protections for the US research enterprise.
The groups warned that funding freezes and worker cuts at NSF—and other agencies, including the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health—”have caused disruption and uncertainty” and threaten “long-lasting negative consequences for our competitiveness, national security, and economic prosperity.”
Deeming America’s technology leadership at risk, the groups pointed out that “in computing alone, a federal investment in research of just over $10 billion annually across 24 agencies and offices underpins a technology sector that contributes more than $2 trillion to the US GDP each year.” Cutting US investment “would be a costly mistake, far outweighing any short-term savings,” the groups warned.
In a separate statement, the Computing Research Association (CRA) called NSF cuts, in particular, a “deeply troubling, self-inflicted setback to US leadership in computing research” that appeared “penny-wise and pound-foolish.”
“NSF is one of the most efficient federal agencies, operating with less than 9 percent overhead costs,” CRA said. “These arbitrary terminations are not justified by performance metrics or efficiency concerns; rather, they represent a drastic and unnecessary weakening of the US research enterprise.”
Many NSF workers are afraid to speak up, the TIP worker told Ars, and industry seems similarly tight-lipped as confusion remains. Only one of the organizations urging Congress to intervene agreed to talk to Ars about the NSF cuts and the significance of TIP. Kathryn Kelley, the executive director of the Coalition for Academic Scientific Computation, confirmed that while members are more aligned with NSF’s Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering and the Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure, her group agrees that all NSF cuts are “deeply” concerning.
“We agree that the uncertainty and erosion of trust within the NSF workforce could have long-lasting effects on the agency’s ability to attract and retain top talent, particularly in such specialized areas,” Kelley told Ars. “This situation underscores the need for continued investment in a stable, well-supported workforce to maintain the US’s leadership in science and innovation.”
Other industry sources unwilling to go on the record told Ars that arbitrary cuts largely affecting the youngest scientists at NSF threatened to disrupt a generation of researchers who envisioned long careers advancing US tech. There’s now a danger that those researchers may be lured to other countries heavily investing in science and currently advertising to attract displaced US researchers, including not just rivals like China but also allies like Denmark.
Those sources questioned the wisdom of using the Elon Musk-like approach of breaking the NSF to rebuild it when it’s already one of the leanest organizations in government.
Ars confirmed that some PhD programs have been cancelled, as many academic researchers are already widely concerned about delayed or cancelled grants and generally freaked out about where to get dependable funding outside the NSF. And in industry, some CHIPS Act projects have already been delayed, as companies like Intel try to manage timelines without knowing what’s happening with CHIPS funding, AP News reported.
“Obviously chip manufacturing companies will slow spending on programs they previously thought they were getting CHIPS Act funding for if not cancel those projects outright,” the Semiconductor Advisors, an industry group, forecasted in a statement last month.
The TIP insider told Ars that the CHIPS Act subsidies for large companies that Trump despises mostly fuel manufacturing in the US, while funding for smaller research facilities is what actually advances technology. Reducing efficiency at TIP would likely disrupt those researchers the most, the TIP worker suggested, proclaiming that’s why TIP must be saved at all costs.
Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.
Currently, TSMC only builds its most advanced chips in Taiwan. But when the most advanced US fabs are operational, they’ll be prepared to manufacture “tens of millions of leading-edge chips” to “power products like 5G/6G smartphones, autonomous vehicles, and AI datacenter servers,” the Commerce Department said in 2024.
TSMC has not confirmed the WSJ’s report but provided a statement: “We’re pleased to have an opportunity to meet with the President and look forward to discussing our shared vision for innovation and growth in the semiconductor industry, as well as exploring ways to bolster the technology sector along with our customers.”
Trump threat of semiconductor tariffs still looms
Advanced chips are regarded as critical for AI innovation, which Trump has prioritized, as well as for national security.
Without a steady supply, the US risks substantial technological and economic losses as well as potential weakening of its military.
To avert that, Trump campaigned on imposing tariffs that he claimed would drive more semiconductor manufacturing into the US, while criticizing the CHIPS Act for costing the US billions. Following through on that promise, in February, he threatened a “25 percent or more tariff” on all semiconductor imports, the WSJ reported. According to CNBC, Trump suggested those tariffs could be in effect by April 2.
“We have to have chips made in this country,” Trump said last month. “Right now, everything is made in Taiwan, practically, almost all of it, a little bit in South Korea, but everything—almost all of it is made in Taiwan. And we want it to be made—we want those companies to come to our country, in all due respect.”
While it’s unclear if Trump plans to overtly kill the CHIPS Act, his government funding cuts could trigger a future where the CHIPS Act dies with no workers left to certify that companies meet requirements for ongoing award disbursements, a semiconductor industry consultant group, Semiconductor Advisors, warned in a statement last month.
“If I were running a chip company, I would not count on CHIPS Act funding, even if I had a signed contract,” SA’s statement said.
In April, TSMC was provided with $6.6 billion in direct CHIPS Act funding to “support TSMC’s investment of more than $65 billion in three greenfield leading-edge fabs in Phoenix, Arizona, which will manufacture the world’s most advanced semiconductors,” the Department of Commerce said.
These investments are key to the Biden-Harris administration’s mission of strengthening “economic and national security by providing a reliable domestic supply of the chips that will underpin the future economy, powering the AI boom and other fast-growing industries like consumer electronics, automotive, Internet of Things, and high-performance computing,” the department noted. And in particular, the funding will help America “maintain our competitive edge” in artificial intelligence, the department said.
It likely wouldn’t make sense to prop TSMC up to help the US “onshore the critical hardware manufacturing capabilities that underpin AI’s deep language learning algorithms and inferencing techniques,” to then limit access to US-made tech. TSMC’s Arizona fabs are supposed to support companies like Apple, Nvidia, and Qualcomm and enable them to “compete effectively,” the Department of Commerce said.
Currently, it’s unclear where the US probe into TSMC will go or whether a damaging finding could potentially impact TSMC’s CHIPS funding.
Last fall, the Department of Commerce published a final rule, though, designed to “prevent CHIPS funds from being used to directly or indirectly benefit foreign countries of concern,” such as China.
If the US suspected that TSMC was aiding Huawei’s AI chip manufacturing, the company could be perceived as avoiding CHIPS guardrails prohibiting TSMC from “knowingly engaging in any joint research or technology licensing effort with a foreign entity of concern that relates to a technology or product that raises national security concerns.”
Violating this “technology clawback” provision of the final rule risks “the full amount” of CHIPS Act funding being “recovered” by the Department of Commerce. That outcome seems unlikely, though, given that TSMC has been awarded more funding than any other recipient apart from Intel.
The Department of Commerce declined Ars’ request to comment on whether TSMC’s CHIPS Act funding could be impacted by their reported probe.
Enlarge/ US President Joe Biden (C) speaks during a tour of the TSMC Semiconductor Manufacturing Facility in Phoenix, Arizona, on December 6, 2022.
In the hopes of dodging a significant projected worker shortage in the next few years, the Biden administration will finally start funding workforce development projects to support America’s ambitions to become the world’s leading chipmaker through historic CHIPS and Science Act investments.
The Workforce Partner Alliance (WFPA) will be established through the CHIPS Act’s first round of funding focused on workers, officials confirmed in a press release. The program is designed to “focus on closing workforce and skills gaps in the US for researchers, engineers, and technicians across semiconductor design, manufacturing, and production,” a program requirements page said.
Bloomberg reported that the US risks a technician shortage reaching 90,000 by 2030. This differs slightly from Natcast’s forecast, which found that out of “238,000 jobs the industry is projected to create by 2030,” the semiconductor industry “will be unable to fill more than 67,000.”
Whatever the industry demand will actually be, with a projected tens of thousands of jobs needing to be filled just as the country is hoping to produce more chips than ever, the Biden administration is hoping to quickly train enough workers to fill openings for “researchers, engineers, and technicians across semiconductor design, manufacturing, and production,” a WFPA site said.
To do this, a “wide range of workforce solution providers” are encouraged to submit “high-impact” WFPA project proposals that can be completed within two years, with total budgets of between $500,000 and $2 million per award, the press release said.
Examples of “evidence-based workforce development strategies and methodologies that may be considered for this program” include registered apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs, colleges or universities offering semiconductor industry-relevant degrees, programs combining on-the-job training with effective education or mentorship, and “experiential learning opportunities such as co-ops, externships, internships, or capstone projects.” While programs supporting construction activities will not be considered, programs designed to “reduce barriers” to entry in the semiconductor industry can use funding to support workers’ training, such as for providing childcare or transportation for workers.
“Making investments in the US semiconductor workforce is an opportunity to serve underserved communities, to connect individuals to good-paying sustainable jobs across the country, and to develop a robust workforce ecosystem that supports an industry essential to the national and economic security of the US,” Natcast said.
Between four to 10 projects will be selected, providing opportunities for “established programs with a track record of success seeking to scale,” as well as for newer programs “that meet a previously unaddressed need, opportunity, or theory of change” to be launched or substantially expanded.
The deadline to apply for funding is July 26, which gives applicants less than one month to get their proposals together. Applicants must have a presence in the US but can include for-profit organizations, accredited education institutions, training programs, state and local government agencies, and nonprofit organizations, Natcast’s eligibility requirements said.
Natcast—the nonprofit entity created to operate the National Semiconductor Technology Center Consortium—will manage the WFPA. An FAQ will be provided soon, Natcast said, but in the meantime, the agency is giving a brief window to submit questions about the program. Curious applicants can send questions to wfpa2024@natcast.org until 11: 59 pm ET on July 9.
Awardees will be notified by early fall, Natcast said.
Planning the future of US chip workforce
In Natcast’s press release, Deirdre Hanford, Natcast’s CEO, said that the WFPA will “accelerate progress in the US semiconductor industry by tackling its most critical challenges, including the need for a highly skilled workforce that can meet the evolving demands of the industry.”
And the senior manager of Natcast’s workforce development programs, Michael Barnes, said that the WFPA will be critical to accelerating the industry’s growth in the US.
“It is imperative that we develop a domestic semiconductor workforce ecosystem that can support the industry’s anticipated growth and strengthen American national security, economic prosperity, and global competitiveness,” Barnes said.
